NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-7322
MICHAEL J. POPE,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Hugh D. Cox Jr., Greenville, North Carolina, for claimant-appellant.
Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With him
on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant Director,
and David F. D’Alessandris, Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Jamie L. Mueller, Attorney, United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge Bruce E. Kasold
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-7322
MICHAEL J. POPE,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in
02-1552, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.
__________________________
DECIDED: May 1, 2009
__________________________
Before GAJARSA, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Michael J. Pope appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying his
claims related to postoperative residuals of a ventral hernia. See Pope v. Nicholson,
No. 02-1552, 2006 WL 1667039 (Vet. App. Apr. 25, 2006). Mr. Pope, relying on our
decision in Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007), rev’d sub nom.
Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. ---, 2009 WL 1045952 (2009), asserts that the Veterans
Court erred by improperly assigning him the burden of proving that a notice error under
38 U.S.C. § 5103 was prejudicial.
Following Mr. Pope’s appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed
our judgment in Sanders, holding that the burden of proving prejudicial error is properly
placed on the Veteran. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 2009 WL 1045952, at *8-9. In light of
the Supreme Court decision in Sanders, we affirm the Veterans Court.
COSTS
No costs.
2006-7322 2